Is it manditory For A man To be married To be Pastor?

[Skandelon]

Like I said before it is because of the wording. When speaking about the wife it says "must" but when speaking about children there is no modifier to suggest it is a must to have children, but if a church felt that the man should then I see no problem with it.

So, that would suggest that a father must not really be a good manager of his children since the word "must" wasn't used? That doesn't seem consistent to me. In both sentences the presumption is that "IF" the man is married and "IF" the man has children he must only have one wife and he must manage his children well.

 

[Skandelon]

No since he has met the requirement and knows how to manage a family, THE point Paul is trying to convey with such a requirement.

If that is the case then would it reason that the qualification is the characteristic of being a "good manager" rather than being "married" and "with children," thus people may observe this characteristic through other relationships and experiences rather than just the typical given cultural oversight of a married man in a home with one wife and children?

 

[Jerome]

Is it just his biological children that would factor into your construct?
Do adopted children "count"?
How about stepchildren?
Or foster children?

 

[freeatlast]

And regarding the death of a spouse, what about a wife who sins and leaves her husband who attempts to remain faithful? If the man remains unmarried would you consider him still qualified?

In such cases each circumstance would need to be considered separately. If it could be concluded that the man had absolutely no fault in the matter and he was a one woman man as scripture commands and sought diligently to keep the marriage together, this means he did not institute the divorce, but was willing to forgive, while meeting every other part of the qualifications then I think he could be considered. By the way this would be VERY rare if ever.

However I will add this. If it were me no matter what the circumstances were and how innocent I was I would not again hold a place of pastor. An example is I believe Charles Stanley should have stepped down. There are plenty of other ways to serve.
Now I assume you want to know why I would not again hold the office. The reason is that the Pastor is suppose to be the example and even if it was not His choice his marriage still failed and the position of pastor needs a man who has or has had a strong biblical marriage. It would be absolutely impossible to constantly explain why the divorce with all the details to every new member in the church so it would just be best to step down as there would always be questions.

Second the pastor has to have an image in the world that is above reproach and any divorce would make that almost impossible. So like I said I would step down so there is not the slightest question or possibility of bringing shame on the Lord.

 

[webdog]

Is it just his biological children that would factor into your construct?
Do adopted children "count"?
How about stepchildren?
Or foster children?

If all are under the father's authority, of course.

 

[freeatlast]

So, that would suggest that a father must not really be a good manager of his children since the word "must" wasn't used? That doesn't seem consistent to me. In both sentences the presumption is that "IF" the man is married and "IF" the man has children he must only have one wife and he must manage his children well.

Not at all. The command is to be in control of any children if there are any, not to have them at least in the reading of the passage.

 

[freeatlast]

Is it just his biological children that would factor into your construct?
Do adopted children "count"?
How about stepchildren?
Or foster children?

Why would those be any different. The passaage says he must be able to ruleth well his own house. That would include the dog if he had one.

 

[webdog]

If that is the case then would it reason that the qualification is the characteristic of being a "good manager" rather than being "married" and "with children," thus people may observe this characteristic through other relationships and experiences rather than just the typical given cultural oversight of a married man in a home with one wife and children?

Partially, but I believe v.5 is quite specific which management skills are needed...managing one's family. A single person has no family to manage as they are not in authority over anyone they love (major pastoral responsibilities).

 

[Skandelon]

Partially, but I believe v.5 is quite specific which management skills are needed...managing one's family. A single person has no family to manage as they are not in authority over anyone they love (major pastoral responsibilities).

Yet, if the intent of Paul is apparently to point toward the characteristic of oversight rather than to make marriage and children a qualification in and of themselves, then the church might hire a former youth worker or church administrator who they have witnessed as having oversight/management abilities, right?

 

[Skandelon]

Second the pastor has to have an image in the world that is above reproach and any divorce would make that almost impossible. So like I said I would step down so there is not the slightest question or possibility of bringing shame on the Lord.[/FONT]

Yeah, the man of God who has failed and been forgiven and restored certainly isn't the image we want to convey to the world. And of course, a Christian killer like Paul, an adultering murder like David, a Christ denier like Peter weren't near as bad as someone who gets a divorce....shame on them! :tear:

 

[freeatlast]

Yet, if the intent of Paul is apparently to point toward the characteristic of oversight rather than to make marriage and children a qualification in and of themselves, then the church might hire a former youth worker or church administrator who they have witnessed as having oversight/management abilities, right?

Not so as they are not even close to the same.

 

[webdog]

Yet, if the intent of Paul is apparently to point toward the characteristic of oversight rather than to make marriage and children a qualification in and of themselves, then the church might hire a former youth worker or church administrator who they have witnessed as having oversight/management abilities, right?

No since overseeing the family or families of others does not coincide with v.5 (if anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?)

 

[Skandelon]

Not so as they are not even close to the same.

Well, I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point. I just think the concept that Paul was disqualifying himself, Jesus, and those single men he counseled to remain single (so as to better focus on serving the Lord) from pastoring is a HUGE stretch. But, I suppose if we worshipped in the same church I could "refrain from eating meat" (so to speak) if it caused a division between us.

 

[freeatlast]

Yeah, the man of God who has failed and been forgiven and restored certainly isn't the image we want to convey to the world. And of course, a Christian killer like Paul, an adultering murder like David, a Christ denier like Peter weren't near as bad as someone who gets a divorce....shame on them! :tear:

Your seeking to rationalize the disobedience to scripture is your choice. All I can do is read it and obey it and tell others what it says hoping they also choose to obey it. In that my responsibility is released.

 

[Skandelon]

No since overseeing the family or families of others does not coincide with v.5 (if anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?)

The same way that Paul took care of God's churches who he helped to start. He proved to be a pretty good manager, right?

Plus, if a man doesn't have children the management is quite different, don't you think? I remember when it was just me and my wife and she helped me manage things making life easier. I'm not sure just having a wife would prove that someone has that characteristic, just as not having one would prove they didn't have that characteristic.

 

[freeatlast]

Well, I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point. I just think the concept that Paul was disqualifying himself, Jesus, and those single men he counseled to remain single (so as to better focus on serving the Lord) from pastoring is a HUGE stretch. But, I suppose if we worshipped in the same church I could "refrain from eating meat" (so to speak) if it caused a division between us.

I thank you for the discussion and I understand your statement about disagreeing, but I don’t hold that there is any virtue in disagreeing. One or both are wrong.
Can two walk together, except they be agreed?
So if I enter a church that is in clear violation of the word I remove myself as there is no such thing as agreement with a disagreement.

 

[Skandelon]

Your seeking to rationalize the disobedience to scripture

What you see as "seeking to rationalize disobedience" I see as: "there is therefore now no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus," for there is a great divide in living in continued disobedience to God and being restored from a mistake in your past. The qualification also lists other attributes such as "temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, and able to teach," but if someone was hot-tempered in his younger days the church will forgive him and qualify him without batting much of an eye, but heaven forbid he or his wife ever messed up in marriage because that sin is just unable to be redeemed for anyone called to preach. I mean, you can murder your wife (as Paul murdered Christians) and be more likely to meet the qualifications for being a pastor in some Baptist churches.

It really just appears to be such a legalistic and pharisaical view of scripture to me. Maybe I'm wrong. I really am not meaning to be ugly, but that is just the way I see this right now in my walk. Lord show me if I'm wrong.

BTW, I'm married with kids without any divorces, so this is not an effort to validate myself in any way. This is just my perspective from what I read in the spirit of the word.

 

[righteousdude2]

Good Question...

I wouldn't think it would be mandatory for a pastor to be married to lead a church. :thumbs:

Pastor Paul

 

[John Toppass]

I know that this has already strayed from the OP, but I ask where does the Bible say Paul was or was not married? It doesn't! In 1Cor 7.8, Paul told the unmarried and the widows to stay single as he was but, does that mean Paul was unmarried or a widow? The scriptures do not make this clear.
Some say Paul was a member of the Sanhedrin, which would require that he be married. While almost all of the Sanhedrin were married the rule of "must be married" only applied to a gentile that converted to Judaism to be married to an Israeli wife. Paul did claim to be a Pharisee in Phil 3.5 and a Hebrew of Hebrews, which some take to mean he was a member of the Sanhedrin.

Now back to the OP. The scripture does say "husband of one wife", it was said in an earlier post that polygamy was a problem among the pagans. I do not think a pagan is qualified to be anything but lost. Polygamy was a problem among gentiles but not as much of a problem as divorce was. (after all if you divorced her, you don't have to feed her and give her a credit card) By the way, divorce in and of itself is not a disqualification but, the reasons and circumstance for divorce may at least take a season or two before one could be considered, if ever.

I for one have never been in a situation of calling a pastor or ordaining an elder or deacon who was single. If that occurs, I pray the Holy Spirit will lead me in wisdom to truly understand this qualification. James 1.5

P.S. some mention biblical divorce. Can anyone tell me where God says it is OK to divorce?

 

[freeatlast]

What you see as "seeking to rationalize disobedience" I see as: "there is therefore now no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus," for there is a great divide in living in continued disobedience to God and being restored from a mistake in your past. The qualification also lists other attributes such as "temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, and able to teach," but if someone was hot-tempered in his younger days the church will forgive him and qualify him without batting much of an eye, but heaven forbid he or his wife ever messed up in marriage because that sin is just unable to be redeemed for anyone called to preach. I mean, you can murder your wife (as Paul murdered Christians) and be more likely to meet the qualifications for being a pastor in some Baptist churches.

It really just appears to be such a legalistic and pharisaical view of scripture to me. Maybe I'm wrong. I really am not meaning to be ugly, but that is just the way I see this right now in my walk. Lord show me if I'm wrong.

BTW, I'm married with kids without any divorces, so this is not an effort to validate myself in any way. This is just my perspective from what I read in the spirit of the word.

I understand completely what you are saying. I wrestle with the idea of holding to scripture as given as being legalistic as I am often reminded, but to date it leaves me at peace.